' On 16-11-1983, Noor Muhammad and others, petitioners, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that Mutation No,197 dated 10-7-1962 of gift was illegal, void and ineffective against their rights, against Nazir Ahmad, respondent No,1, and Wali Muhammad, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.2 to 11, in the Court of Civil Judge, Ferozewala. It was averred in the plaint that the petitioners/plaintiffs were the successors-in-interest of Nawab Din who (Nawab Din) owned 39 acres of land, out of which he transferred one-third to Nazir Ahmad, respondent, by way of gift Mutation No,197 dated 10-7-1962. It was alleged that Nawab Din in collusion with Wali Muhammad got the mutation of gift sanctioned in his favour and that physical possession of the land was not delivered to Nazir Ahmad and was still with them (petitioners/plaintiffs). The suit was resisted. In the written statement, preliminary objections were raised. The defendants denied the correctness of the averments in the plaint. The trial Court framed eight issues. The parties led their evidence.
Noor Muhammad, one of the plaintiffs, appeared as PW-3, Muhammad Rafiq PW-1 and Muhammad Naseeb PW-2 were produced in proof of the suit. The plaintiffs tendered documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 in evidence. To rebut the evidence of the plaintiffs/petitioners, the respondents produced Muhammad Ismail DW-1 Nazir Ahmad, one of the respondents/defendants appeared as DW-2. They tendered in evidence copy of Mutation No,197 Ex.D.2, copy of the record of rights Ex.D.3, copies of Khasra Girdawri Ex.D.4 and Ex.D.5 and copy of Jamabandi Ex.D.6.
2. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 27-4-1987. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs against this judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Sheikhupura, on 5-4-1990, hence this revision.
3. Before me, the learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the findings of the Courts below on issues Nos.2, 5, 6 and 7, which are as under:-
(2) Whether the suit is within time? OPP
(5) Whether the gift of land dated 10-7-1962 is void, ineffective against the rights of the plaintiffs ?
OPP
(6) Who is in possession of the suit land and since when O.P. Parties.
(7) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree claimed for in the main suit? OPP.
' He argued that the findings of the Courts below suffered from misreading of material evidence; that the mutation of oral Hiba was not genuine; that physical possession of the land was not delivered to respondent No,1; that the petitioners were not aware of the mutation of Hiba and the finding of the trial Court that the petitioners were aware of gift mutation is contrary to the record; that respondent No,1 had concealed the transaction of Hiba from the petitioners and that the issues have not been decides by the Courts below separately.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners with care. I find that the question as to whether or not Nawab had gifted the disputed land to respondent No,1 and had delivered physical possession thereof to him, are questions of fact. The Courts below after applying their conscious mind to the oral evidence and the documents placed on record have found these facts against the plaintiffs/petitioners. The question as to whether or not the petitioners/plaintiffs were aware of the sanction of gift mutation is also a question of fact. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any misreading or non-reading of material oral or documentary evidence by the Courts below. The learned Appellate Court has attended to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs addressed before it and has given sound and cogent reasons for overruling the same. On my independent assumption, I find that the disputed mutation was sanctioned on the statement of Nawab Din/donor and not only mutation was attested in favour of respondent No,1, but the mutation was given effect in the Revenue Record.
Copies of the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawri do not support the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs. r do not see any legal infirmity in the impugned judgments and decrees. The learned counsel has not been able to make out a case of illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error. The trial Court has virtually given findings on all the issues although it did not discuss the same separately, so no exception can be taken to the judgment of the trial Court. The learned Appellate Court has dealt with the points raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners/plaintiffs before it.
5. Pursuant to the above discussion, I do not see any justification to interfere with the well-reasoned judgments and decrees of the Courts below. So this revision is dismissed in limine.